In a bit of must-see TV, conservative icon and Daily Wire founder Ben Shapiro appeared on CNN’s Reliable Sources this Sunday to debate host Brian Stelter on the topic of the media’s liberal bias. As expected, Shapiro wiped the floor with Stelter as he called out CNN for blatantly pushing a gun control agenda and not being objective.
After being asked by Stelter to address where he saw the greatest example of liberal media bias, Shapiro zeroed in on their uniform calls for gun control and gun bans. “Well, over the last three weeks, obviously the coverage of the gun debate has been absolutely egregious,” he said. “And I don't want to single out your network, but CNN has been pretty bad about this, from a conservative perspective.”
Shapiro noted that most media outlets only allowed anti-gun survivors of the Parkland shooting to be heard extensively across all their programs, which was true even for Stelter. The CNN host had brought on anti-gun student David Hogg to smear gun rights advocates while ignoring pro-gun survivor Kyle Kashuv.
“They allow certain people to go on TV and suggest that folks like Dana Loesch or people at the NRA are evil, don't care, they’re terrorists, and there is no pushback from the anchors. This sort of thing makes a lot of people on the right feel that the media are really using this as an opportunity to push gun control…,” Shapiro explained.
Stelter took the ridiculous hardline of demanding to know, what was political about wanting fewer gun deaths? Shapiro hit back by saying, of course, no one wants more death and slammed CNN for allowing guests to smear the NRA yet got upset when NRA spokeswoman Dana Loesch slammed them back. “CNN doesn't get upset! Certain anchors or reporters may challenge something, that's not a network-wide thing,” Stelter interrupted with an obvious falsehood.
Stelter was actually schooled last month on HLN’s S.E. Cupp Unfiltered for downplaying left-wing activist journalists as no big deal.
Following a humorous moment where Shapiro's phone went off, Stelter accused Shapiro’s Daily Wire and other conservative outlets of trying to “tear” down and “get rid of journalism altogether.” Without missing a beat, Shapiro scolded Stelter for attacking their motives:
I don’t think questioning the motive is a useful thing. If you can point out to me where the critique is wrong I think that’s one thing. If the suggestion is that the critique is invalid, because the motive is invalid that's another. So, again, I think if you don't like the motive, then ignore the motive and take the critique in so far it's effective. Right?
“I don't want CNN to disappear,” Shapiro exclaimed when explaining why he was tough on the media. “There is a difference between op-ed and journalism. It is why my critique of MSNBC sometimes is a lot less strident, I think, than my critique of CNN. Because CNN purports to be objective and MSNBC really does not purport to be objective in the same way.”
Stelter shot back with a snide retort that Shapiro and his staff should try to get jobs at The New York Times: “If you don’t like the coverage, try to be a part of the solution as opposed to complaining about it.”
With a light-hearted chuckle, Shapiro pointed out that CNN probably wouldn’t hire him and that they probably didn’t have the money to pay for him: “I don’t know, would you hire me? I really doubt that, and not only that, I’m not sure you guys can pay me. I’ll be frank, I make a lot of money.”
The relevant portions of the transcript are below, click expand to read:
CNN
Reliable Sources
March 18, 2018
11:43:16 AM Eastern(…)
BRIAN STELTER: Where do you see the most egregious media bias right now?
BEN SHAPIRO: Well, over the last three weeks, obviously the coverage of the gun debate has been absolutely egregious. And I don't want to single out your network, but CNN has been pretty bad about this, from a conservative perspective. The idea when there is a mass shooting, that the media feel the necessity to put on TV, not only survivors but specific survivors.
That there is a certain subset of survivors who make it on TV a lot, a lot and certain survivors who don't, and that they decide to single out certain events and not other events in order to make a particular case. Or they allow certain people to go on TV and suggest that folks like Dana Loesch or people at the NRA are evil, don't care, they’re terrorists, and there is no pushback from the anchors. This sort of thing makes a lot of people on the right feel that the media are really using this as an opportunity to push gun control rather than objectively covering the legislative efforts that are going on in Washington, D.C.
STELTER: So, your view is that it should be 50/50 even if most of the students are urging gun control measures. You want it to be 50/50 or what?
SHAPIRO: No, 80/20 would be fine. Anything but 95/5 would be a good thing, and I think it's also pretty obvious that -- listen. Everybody – this is my opinion about journalism. Everybody in journalism has their own political views and we all vote obviously, or at least most of us do, and it's not a pleasant thing when people in the media pretend their political views are not influencing their coverage when it’s so obvious that those political views clearly are influencing their coverage.
STELTER: But is it political to want fewer gun death? That's not political.
SHAPIRO: Well obviously it's not political to want fewer gun death, no one wants more gun deaths. I think what is political is allowing certain people to go on TV, and without any sort of follow up question, say things like, their political enemies don't care about human lives. I remember CNN got very upset when Dana Loesch said, at CPAC people in the media didn’t care enough–
STELTER: CNN doesn't get upset! Certain anchors or reporters may challenge something, that's not a network-wide thing.
SHAPIRO: Well reporters need to challenge. I mean -- again, the reporters are the representatives of the network. When I tune in there is a reporter on CNN and the CNN insignia is in the bottom corner of the crawl, there is nothing I can do as an observer but say, “CNN may have a bias here.” Especially if that bias all runs in one direction. It's not like some of the members of the CNN are pushing a particular agenda and some are pushing another agenda. If there is a bias it is universally to one side, and that's what people on the right are seeing.
STELTER: So, you think that the agenda of being pushed is gun control by interviewing students who are scared to go back to school. Is that how you perceive it?
SHAPIRO: No, I mean the agenda being pushed is gun control if there is no pushback on questions that would be asked to any other guests. I think that the tragedy is obviously a terrible thing but it doesn’t necessarily confer expertise and that’s one of the big problems here.
(…)
STELTER: I want to ask you though, your website, The Daily Wire, and a lot of other conservative media sites that have criticisms of the press. I sometimes worry you all are trying to tear things down as opposed to make them better. It's one thing to critique and want journalism to be better, but sometimes I feel like you're trying to get rid of journalism altogether.
SHAPIRO: I don’t think questioning the motive is a useful thing. If you can point out to me where the critique is wrong I think that’s one thing. If the suggestion is that the critique is invalid, because the motive is invalid that's another.
So, again, I think if you don't like the motive, then ignore the motive and take the critique in so far it's effective. Right? We all have motives, but the fact is—listen, I don't want CNN to disappear, don’t want The New York Times, I don’t want The Washington Post to disappear. I want them to do what they are say they are supposed to be doing.
I want them to perform objective journalism if that’s what they say they’re going to do and opinion journalism if they want to say they are opinion journalists. That's fine. My problem is when—This is why my critique, for example, of The New York Times op-ed page is far less than my critique of The New York Times objective journalism. There is a difference between op-ed and journalism. It is why my critique of MSNBC sometimes is a lot less strident, I think, than my critique of CNN. Because CNN purports to be objective and MSNBC really does not purport to be objective in the same way.
STELTER: Part of me thinks you and your colleagues at the Daily Wire should try to get jobs then at The New York Times. If you don’t like the coverage, try to be a part of the solution as opposed to complaining about it.
SHAPIRO: I don’t know, would you hire me? I really doubt that, and not only that, I’m not sure you guys can pay me. I’ll be frank, I make a lot of money.
(…)
